Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29196
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Fwd: Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. |
| Date | 2014-03-31 12:35 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <lhc5fl$vb0$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <5338FB77.8000701@gmail.com> |
On 1/12/2014 7:54 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: >>> The GA144 is fabricated at 180nm >> Of course. It is interesting that they don't seem to worry using >> 3 generations behind technology. > > Supposedly 180nm is where leakage current is the lowest. They want to > minimize idle power even at a cost in active power, since their approach > involves keeping the cpu cores idle almost all the time, and switching > on and off very quickly. Pardon me coming late to the party... Yes there is the increased leakage at smaller geometries, but also the massively increased cost of a mask set. I doubt GA ever had the funding to produce anything at state of the art geometries. Actually, I wonder if the leakage is significantly more for a single transistor. That is, would the exact same chip end up having a much higher leakage current or is the problem with the newer processes only a real issue when using 10's or 100's of millions of transistors. I don't recall how many transistors are in the GA144, but it is *far* below 1 million I'm sure. -- Rick
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Fwd: Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-03-31 12:35 -0400
csiph-web